Source: CNet News. June 30th. Check it out Here.
A week after U.S. Vice President Joe Biden Warned that the government would start cracking down on illegal file sharing, the feds swooped in and seized assets belonging to operators of accused movie-pirating sites.
The government on Wednesday also took control of at least seven of the sites in question: Movies-Links.tv, Now-Movies.com, TVShack.net, Filespump.com, Planetmoviez.com, ZML.com, ThePirateCity.org, Ninjavideo.net, and NinjaThis.net. More than a dozen bank, investment, and advertising accounts were seized, and authorities served search warrants on residences in several different states.
Authorities are searching for operators of the sites as part of an ongoing criminal investigation, according to Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The crimes that the operators are accused of committing weren't clear, but some of the sites are accused of distributing film copies prior to their theatrical release.
As of 3 p.m. PDT, some of the sites were still operating, but government officials said they anticipated the sites would come under government control within hours.
The investigation involved multiple law enforcement groups, including the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and ICE, a unit of the Department of Homeland Security.
Last week, Biden and Victoria Espinel, the U.S. intellectual property enforcement coordinator, told reporters that they wanted to send a message to counterfeiters and pirates that this administration was intent on protecting the nation's intellectual property. Espinel directed a statement at those people who trafficked in phony goods or unauthorized music and movies: "We have committed to putting you out of business."
ICE and the Department of Justice both suggested Wednesday that these types of seizures and investigations are just the beginning.
More to come
That's right boys and girls, the Federal Government is now shutting down websites and Law Firms owned by corporate movie makers are Suing Private Citizens who are using Peer to Peer programs like LimeWire and uTorrent. That's right, they're even shutting down Peer to Peer programs and Suing every day "Joe Blow" users who have downloaded Movies, Games, and MP3's. If you'd like the proof of this happening right now, there's some mess going on about the movie "Hurt Locker" which some guy shared on LimeWire. Now the makers of the movie are Suing the distributers such as the makers of LimeWire and even going as far as to file suite against 5,000 yet un-named people. Don't think they are, that they can't? They ARE!!! Here's Proof!!! The Government themselves have started shutting down domains and are petitioning ISP's for their users names and home addresses so that other law firms can also file suite against home users just for "watching" something online without even having downloaded it to their computer. Seen this picture anywhere lately?
Source: CNet News. June 11th. Check it out Here.
In Arizona, a law firm called White Berberian recently began advertising on its site that it will defend those accused of illegal file sharing by Dunlap Grubb & Weaver. That is the firm, which also goes by the name U.S. Copyright Group, that is filing lawsuits on behalf of filmmakers who claim their movies were pirated by thousands of peer-to-peer users.
In addition to the Oscar-winning film "The Hurt Locker," Dunlap Grubb represents about a dozen movies, including "Far Cry" and "Call of the Wild 3D." The law firm has said that it will sue more than 50,000 alleged file sharers.
So far, it appears thousands of people have received settlement offers from Dunlap Grubb and many are confused about their rights. Typically, people learn about being accused of violating copyright law from their Internet service providers, which inform them that they have received a subpoena to turn over their identity to Dunlap Grubb.
The law firm usually follows up with a form letter informing the accused that someone using their Internet protocol address was illegally sharing one of the films. Dunlap Grubb then tells the accused file sharer that they can settle the case for $1,500 if they move quickly. If they wait, the firm will charge them $2,500 and if they decide to fight it out in court, Dunlap Grubb can ask for up to $150,000
That's right, another 500,000 people are going to be sued. That's Half A Million People!!! Not rich people. Not Hard Core pirates. Not the people who ripped the movie and put it up on the Internet. Normal users or even parents who's kids installed LimeWire and the parents didn't even know what it was, much less that it was technically being used for something "Illegal". LimeWire is just the start too. Now that the Government is in on the action you can bet that all these other Peer to Peer services will be next, and that includes torrents.
It's odd though as I didn't think "Peer to Peer" programs had "Servers" that could be shut down that would stop a program from working but apparently they do. Some how they can shut down programs like LimeWire and uTorrent as well as sue the people who made it and are using it. ISP's are willingly handing over records of everything your IP downloads and every website you visit. Chances are if you even go to what will soon be a "black listed" site your name will go onto a "watch-list" or you'll soon be getting a statement from your ISP quickly followed by a court notice that you are being sued.
YouTube was granted a "Exception" because it actively takes pirated and copyrighted materials down and because it has plenty of content that is "User Made" and not copyrighted. Check out this article on CNet News about the differences between YouTube and LimeWire and how exactly one can be shut down and not the other.
Web copyright: YouTube up, Lime Wire down. Source: CNet News. June 30th
This is only the beginning everyone. The sh!ts hitting the fan and the common people are about to feel the pinch of the Heavy Hand of Corporate Government.
As soon as you start suing kids who shoplift CDs for $150,000 I will agree that the current attacks on pirates are reasonable. Currently there is a major double standard in they system which needs to be addressed. Go after pirates, but be reasonable.
That is my point Delmorth, they don't target Pirates, they target people who can't defend themselves and they do it with a govt. sanction. Like a privateer or a bounty hunter. Or as the CORP. OF AMERICA allows them to do. Feeling cheap yet?
And how long before the chairman of Warner Brothers or Columbia Pictures or Disney becomes US President?
The installation of Big Arnie as California governor is not a coincidence. He/they would like for him to become US president, but he wasn't born there so it carboshes that idea. But it would surprise me none to see more media based identities entering politics.. to have bums on seats in Congress and the senate. Sure the entertainment industry has its lobbyists, but to actually have the ability to create/shape manufacture laws, even better.
As to the idea it is mostly the poor who download movies and music because they can't afford to buy it, my nephew (who used to do it) says that it is more the middle class and rich kids who download illegally. He says that of all his friends, it's the rich kids who do it the most, then his middle class friends, then his poorer friends lastly.
Of his poorer friends, he says, most of them cannot download anything, legally or otherwise, because they can't afford to buy a computer, or if they have a computer they can't afford an internet connection that would facilitate downloading anything of any size due to the quota system present here in Oz.
Still, these illegal downloaders are at the end of the piracy food chain, and in a sense, are the victims of an easy come easy go consumerist society that the corporations seeking to sue them in essence created. I'm not saying what they do is right, nor am I defending it, but I would have thought it more productive to go after the actual pirates who rip and upload the materials. As my nephew informs me, some of them are quite well known and even have a cult following, with their own file sharing sites, so why is it the industry is not going after them instead?
You don't stop a venomous snake biting you by cutting off its tail... and the same applies to illegal downloading. Cut off the snakes head, so to speak, and you stop 500, 000 file sharers dead in their tracks. So it begs the question: is it more profitable, when box office sales are way down due to the recession, for the entertainment industry to sue 500,000 illegal file sharers $1500 each... or to sue the individual entities who upload the files $150,000 each?
My guess is the greater return to the industry moguls would be to hit the illegal downloaders.... not so much to protect the artists and/or the creative forces who actually support/carry them, but to protect their own lavish and extravagant lifestyles.
It bears some thinking, and hopefully somebody in the US government will see sense... but I seriously doubt it. Politicians are not known to be blessed with sufficient grey matter, are they.
Its all about how much money is to be had. For example ...... 10 illegal downloaders at 10 bucks a pop versus 100,000 innocenta at 1500 bucks a pop. You do the math.
And from another article, "So when will the attacks end? According to Anonymous, it won’t be anytime soon. "There is no time frame," an unnamed member said. "We will keep going until we stop being angry." (http://www.tomsguide.com/us/RIAA-MPAA-PandaLabs-DDoS,news-8170.html)
"your anger is a gift" to quote some RATM, I saw an article about this and kinda of smiled also. There is the idea that can't put us all in jail, prison inmates are notorious for their lack of a tax base! And they don't go to see movies either so the theaters lose!
Oh this is SO WRONG. Everything that ever is, was or will be produced, physical or otherwise, comes from the effort of *somebody*. The source of all products, physical or not, is the labour of the people behind all those products, be it physical or mental labour (and don't forget that behind every physical labor is the mental energy that initiates the physical action).
That is what you are really paying for, regardless of the distribution medium.
So stop rewarding the people who create things, and see what happens.
I have a friend from a third world country where the pirate softwares are abundant. According to him, it is the result of exchange rate between US dollar and their currency that cause the prize of the legal software become very expensive. ( just imagine if the prize of the software is the same as their monthly wages) There, only rich kids can buy legal games (which is imported from other country); while there are a lot of kids who want to play the game. That's why people choose to buy pirated version which is affortable (and available) to them. if only the legal game is affordable and available in the local market, I'm sure a lot of them (not everyone) will buy the legal game.
Yes but a computer game is a luxury. You don't need it. But you want it.
To say its ok to buy pirated software because you can't afford it otherwise, is making excuses for your bad behavior. Go with out, its not going to kill you.
If you can't afford a game how on earth can you buy a computer?
This is what my nephew say of his poor(er) friends. If they have a computer it's an old clunker purchased second-hand... and usually it's "housebound" because they can't afford the internet as well. He said that it was the rich kids who mostly downloaded illegally... one 19 y/o kid in particular, he said, is a spoiled brat who downloads several gigabytes of music and movies daily, despite having a millionaire father who pretty much gives him anything he asks for. This kids gets 200 bucks a week pocket money for free... gratis, he doesn't even have to earn it. And that's over and above the 50 bucks a day he gets Monday to Friday to buy lunches while at university.
Sheesh, this kid can afford to buy music and movies better than me, but according to my nephew he downloads stuff illegally so he can buy his weekly supply of wacky tobacky. Sure I got 2000 plus CD's (many of which were in budget bins) but it has taken me 30 something years to collect them all.
You make a good point here, Karen. Yes, manufacturers/producers employ the services of advertising agencies who are adept at manipulating the minds of the buying public to promote their goods, but what is not often considered of the majority is the propensity to pay. In most cases, the going prices is the maximum the company thinks the market can bear, based on what researchers say is the average wage.
Trouble is, many people are earning well below the 'average' wage and therefore are unable to pay 'what the market can bear'. Too late, though, the advertisers have told us it is a MUST HAVE item.... and to keep up with the Jonses, because many people are way too proud to admit they're too poor, the less fortunate in the income stakes feel they must resort to stealing to make ends meet. And we must remember, those ends include luxury items because we've been told they are MUST HAVE accessories if you want to succeed, be accepted in this modern world.
Is it right to steal? Of course not! But don't many manufacturers/producers/retailers set themselves up for it by setting high prices to maximise profits, then go employ some spin doctor to convince us we must have it?
Again, though, it is not so much the poor who steal luxury items, generally speaking. The poorest of the poor may resort to stealing food to survive, or clothing to keep warm, but rarely do they steal luxury items. For one, they simply have no need (makeup/expensive clothes, etc), and two, they often cannot afford to run/power them (cars/electrical goods, etc).
As my nephew pointed out of his friends, it's the rich ones who tend to steal luxury items most often, because they have a perceived need and believe they are expected to have them by their peers. Perhaps this is why we often hear of Hollywood stars being arrested for shop lifting fairly petty items they could easily afford. It's not that they can't afford it, it's because advertising says they must have it and they'd rather spend their money elsewhere, like on opulent homes, luxury yachts and cars, etc. Hmmm, maybe that's how the rich stay rich... if they're not given it free to publicly endorse it, they steal it instead?
It sounds like I don't like rich people, don't it! I lump 99.9999% of them in with politicians, bankers, lawyers, advertisers and used car salesmen. The majority would steal their grandmas purse and sell it back to her... emptied. Personally, I'd like to see another recession type situation that evaporated their entire personal wealth in an instant... then sit back belly laughing as they piss and moan about having to do it as tough as we peons have since forever.
Yes, those things you mention are called attenuants - there is a huge difference between the guy who steals an apple because he is starving and the guy who robs a bank. It's still stealing, whichever way you look at it, and both should - and indeed must - be punished, otherwise the whole society goes to hell. Without rules and some way to enforce those rules, all you have is chaos.
Also, the fact that we have thinking brains and are able to go against and/or control our most basic impulses is the only thing that distinguishes us from animals. So, the simple reason that we are aware of our actions, and consciously choose to initiate them, makes us responsible.
And what are we? Stupid? Isn't it also our responsability to ask ourselves "do I really need this?"
Every manufacturer/whatever has the right to set whatever price he wants for his wares. You have the right to chose not to buy it.
It's all well and good to say we are responsible, but advertising (particularly subliminal advertising designed specifically to get you to buy a specific product and only that product) plays a major part in how many of us react when in a store. For the most part, most people will purchase the products on offer, but there are a few who cannot resist the magnetism of a subliminally advertised product and who will steal it for various reasons... ie: poor and can't afford it, or simply because it's there.
When I worked at Woolworths some years ago, a woman I caught shoplifting 2 tins of expensive red salmon gave me the excuse that she had forgotten her purse, but I suspect it was more that she was on the lower end of the socio-economic scale and wanted to impress her friends and/or neighbours over lunch. Essentially, it was an impulse thing... and an impulse thing is exactly that.... something done without thinking, and at one time or another we are all guilty of acting on impulse, aren't we.
Anyway, it was like this woman couldn't apologise enough for her action and, to me, it was an out of character thing for her to do, but there she was... red faced and guilty of stealing 20 bucks worth of fish. The interesting thing to note here is that the particular brand of tinned salmon was being thrashed to death with TV advertising at the time... and that may very well be a pertinent point.
So yes, while we are different from animals, in that we have the power of thought/decision, underneath we are still animals and driven by the same urges they are.... its just that society/so-called civilisation has attached an element of guilt to it.
The more I think about the social and psychological factors at play in this (some I mentioned in a previous post and those mentioned by k10w3 and starkers) the more I find I have to accept the fact that piracy is/was an unavoidable byproduct of the world as it is now. I know many people will disagree with that statement but the fact is if you look at sociological, psychological (neurological and social), and criminology literature you will find that the existence piracy in its current state makes sense, even that fact that otherwise 'good' people pirate without consideration for the harm it causes. I am not saying it's 'right' just that it's existence will continue so long as society remains an exponential capitalist system (the exponential growth requirement is "problematic" to put it nicely), stratified and punishment (and punishment avoidance) oriented.
I'm not going to bore you with all the details of it because that would require a 6+ page essay on the topic and considerable research to find the appropriate references for something I doubt many people (if any) would actually read. But for those who are interested look up in-group and out-group dynamics, class stratification, globalization, media and advertising, golden arrow of consumption, materialism (psychology definition, not philosophy of mind definition), neuro-psych (all of it really), social capital, panopticon, social control and resistance, the effectiveness of punishment in deterring behaviour (also know as negative reinforcement).... that's all I can think of off the top of my head (probably already more than most non-sociology/psychology students/professors would ever read about it anyway).
You make a lot of sense - everything that happens in a big way (whether "legal" or "illegal") has at least one major reason for it, frequently more than one major reason.
And when you think about it, why don't we have a system of "the people who make best use of existing resources are the best", rather than earning $100m profit one year, having 10% "growth" (up to $110m), and then having to earn $121m profit next year just to get the same amount (10%) of exponential growth? Does the amount of resources in the entire world really go up exponentially like the capitalist system? That is probably the main reason why so many companies and countries treat the environment as an unlimited, freely abuseable resource, because the exponential capitalist system demands it to get ever and ever increasing profits.
"Problematic" is an understatement, but at the same time it is spot on.
Best regards,Steven.
Well, yeah, we live in a materialistic world where your worth is not based on who you *are*, but on what you have and what you do. For instance, a movie actor or actress can be (and usually is) a mess as a person, but is still adored and looked up by millions. Those are our role models, and, unfortunately, the ones most of us aspire to be.
And thanks God for guilt, it also helps keeping us in check, otherwise imagine a world where everybody would follow their own instincts with no guilt and no fear for punishement. Since resources are limited, this would inevitably lead to conflict and mayhem when two or more people wanted the same thing - and only one could have it. Heck, we already have plenty of conflict today with our existent laws and rules to keep our 'animal instincts' in check.
Is crime unavoidable? Well, yes, it is unavoidable in this world. But can it be controlled? Yes, it can reduced, but for that rules must be enforced - and not only criminal rules, but, most importantly, also social rules, or 'peer pressure'.
Our society as gone from 8 to 80, in other words, from very repressive to extremely liberal. Everything is allowed in the name of 'liberty' until eventually nothing is 'abnormal' or 'taboo' anymore. If you expose people to blood and gore enough times, it will cease to shock them and will eventually be considered 'normal'. Their emotions have been dulled. Insidious process this, which is allowed because people have forgoten that great liberty requires great personal responsability.
Sigh. Sorry, I'm deviating a bit from the original topic.
Steven, you hit the nail on the head. All the while capitalists demand ever increasing profits/exponential growth, the world will demand consumerist products and services (because capitalist advertising dictates that we must have it)... and with trillions upon trillions tied up in capitalists pockets, not circulating in the community, wealth (even being relatively comfortable financially) has become a rarer and rarer commodity within ordinary society and theft is thus inevitable. In other words, if they're not depleting the world's resources, they're hogging them to themselves.
That's why communism in its purest form (communal sharing) was ruled as being evil by capitalist pigs, because they wished not to share the wealth of the world with anyone not of their ilk/below their station.
Actually, problematic (when describing capitalist greed) is grossly inadequate. It will eventually kill off the human race as sure as any virulent disease, just more punishingly and prolonged.
Unfortunately we still have to live in the world we live in, so that will not stop be being the best person I can within this world's constraints. And there a lot of good things in the world - however they are frequently off the beaten track (of the common "I/You must have this" or "I must have more money, more prestigious cars, bigger and more extravagant houses than the next person"). Sometimes being unconventional can be a good thing. More money does not bring more happiness, it just brings you more options. But I think it is better to have a certain amount, plus a little extra for the occasional treat, and then focussing on what nice things you can do for other people, and not the other way round.
If that was the case then we would all be stealing Big Macs, nicking Remington shavers and walking out with Sony t.vs. We don't because there is social consequences to our actions. The stigma of a criminal, confrontation with others while trying to take something which does not belong to you and of course the Law.
Data is easy to steal, who is going to confront you while you download it. No police are going to knock on your door and fine you and everyone does it, so why not. It has little to do with advertisement and everything to do with what you think you can get away with.
Yes I want to see that new move with mr hotlips right now, can't wait until it reaches the cinema, hell I am not paying 10 bucks. I'll just download this torrent.
We are just a bunch of smart monkeys, but we created this great thing which we call a society and the rules which keeps it together
Actually because communism would only work if everybody did their best for the good of the community. In the real world, what happens is that everybody ends up expecting *the other* to do their best, while they do as little as they can possibly get away with. And when that doesn't work (for obvious reasons), they all point the finger at each other. In the real world, all communism does is reward mediocrity.
So, capitalism is not perfect, but at least it rewards the efforts of those that *do* go the extra mile, and, by doing this, everybody wins indirectly, even though the initial motivation is rather selfish.
I, myself, am a very liberal person, but I don't think everyone should be a liberal person. It takes a certain amount of experience, maturity, and a grasp of a person's own self (knowing who you really are inside) to balance liberal idealism with real life practice. That's not to say a conservative person isn't mature, experienced or not in touch with their own self, I'm just saying there a lot of personality factors that determine whether someone can pull off a certain world view responsibly or not, and that goes for both liberalism and conservativism. I really don't like using those words because they are so politically charged, especially these days, basically what I mean is that certain personalities can embrace novelty and other personalities are much more comfortable with routine and predictability. When someone who is more comfortable with routine and predictability is exposed to "abnormal and taboo" things, they will grow in a different direction than someone who is comfortable with novelty would if exposed to abnormal and taboo things.
Wonder if they will be policing rips over on DA?
Bah...
Here's an idea, how bout harness some of this Govt. effort and brainpower to BRING ABOUT A BETTER CLIMATE FOR EMPLOYERS TO CREATE JOBS
Last time i checked, no one I know.. can actually afford to buy movies.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
